I can understand the criticism - especially when so well explained. My feelings just get hurt because nobody likes to hear one their favorite ________ is anything less than perfect.

And nah - I haven't heard anything about Eugenides. Prolific, he ain't.

You read a lot, man. I wish I could be up to date and part of the conversation on all these new books, but I'm still busy with the classics. I feel like I'll forever be behind.


Indeed. I develop a twitch whenever I hear anyone speak less than euphorically about a Herzog film or Cormac McCarthy.

find a job at a library. it'll make it easier. was a time that i was reading four books a week, reliably. At a two per week rate right now.

How are you liking In Defense of Food? I can't decide if my next Pollan endeavor is going to be that or Botany of Desire.

botany of desire is great. def recommended. it's the only pollan i've ever read, but i enjoyed it thoroughly.

Milan Kundera's The Joke

The Unbearable Lightness of Being is my favorite novel ever, I've read it more times than I can remember, so this one has some high expectations attached.

Blindness by Jose Saramago

I just started this yesterday. I'm getting the feeling that a lot of nuance gets lost in translation, but so far so good.

Yeah, I like it alright considering it's the first Pollan I've read. I wanted to check out Botany of Desire or Omnivore's Dilemma but ended up with this as a gift so I'm reading it for now.

Jumping into my 2nd read of HP & the Deathly Hallows. At this point, I see that it's quite a bit creaky in the "Harry remembered this happening in Book 1, Book 2, etc." expositionary material.

Just finished Remote Feed, a collection of short stories by David Gilbert. I'd had it on my bookshelf since high school, probably bought it in 1999 or 2000. Weird to finally actually read it. It was OK, I guess. None of the stories had a very big impact on me, and they all felt kind of samey. Didn't care for any of the characters, but there was the odd sentence here and there that made me laugh. Now I'm reading Philip Roth's The Ghost Writer. Picked it up for $2.50 yesterday at a used book store.

Finished The Ghost Writer, which I liked, though it was a little underwhelming. Will probably like it more when I've read the other Zuckerman books. Now I'm slogging through Chuck Palahniuk's Rant: An Oral Biography of Buster Casey. What an awful, tedious book this is. Halfway through and I've stopped paying attention to who is supposed to be saying what because it never really matters anyway. It's a bit amusing how this is supposed to be an oral history and yet every single character sounds just like the narrator in any Palahniuk book, with the same obvious rhythms and repetitions, the same precious little sentences each striving to be a tiny pearl of profundity.

Palahniuk clearly adores Amy Hempel and, much like Hempel, there's a distinct lack of truth in any of his sentences. Only ambiguity pretending to be wisdom, wiki-ready factoids acting as filler, and jokey bullshit masquerading as creative invention, and all combined hoping and failing to express something other than trite sentiment. Eight books into his career and Palahniuk is still digging around in the same shallow box of tricks, and his next two books appear to continue the trend. Anymore, you can just form a committee to write a new Palahniuk book.

At least his covers are still cool.

I give you credit for making it halfway through...this is literally the first book in years that i've started and not finished. I can't even remember the last book I started without finishing before this one. The more I read the more I hated it. I remember thinking there had to be something I was missing, because who in their right mind would ever read this crap?

I actually enjoyed Rant.

I actually DID stop paying attention to who was talking, I didn't find it that big a deal. The plot of what happens, I remember being pretty interesting. I think...I don't know what the point of having it be an "oral history" was, but I feel like it was an interesting way to sort of slowly reveal what I remember was some pretty interesting plot.

Now his new one? Pygmy? That's the first book in ages that I picked up and didn't finish. I got through like 5 pages, saw that the whole book was written like that and I returned it. It's his only book I don't own.

Random question:

Would you recommend someone read Jeff Smith's Bone in color or in black and white?

I prefer the black and white version, but I was reading it for years so it just feels right. There's certainly nothing wrong with the color versions, though. In fact they're really quite attractive. I guess, just compare a few issues and see which one you prefer. Great comic book.

Thanks.

I read the first graphic novel, Out of Boneville in the library and went looking for it in B&N. Instead I found the big full-series volume... I was just wondering whether fans thought it was something akin to colorizing a black and white movie.

Finished Rant, which didn't get any better and, like petras's experience with the book, the longer I read it the more I hated it. Just an awful, awful book. I've hated Palahniuk books before (Invisible Monsters, Diary) but only with this one does it feel like he just completely fell flat on his face. Never have I been so bored by a book that tries so hard to shock and offend. Now I'm in the middle of The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. It's OK, so far, though I'm a bit surprised it won the Pulitzer. The geeky references are fun and all, but I'm not exactly blown away by the characters or the narrative. It seems rather typical, with little to elevate it above other narratives of its kind. Perhaps the second half gets better. We'll see.

it's diaz and his language that make the book so strong. characters are secondary to the prose.

the book is also second to this: http://www.newyorker.com/fiction/features/...fi_fiction_diaz

he's a great, great author and oscar wao is a pretty good start for him. if you ever have a chance to see him talk, check him out. charismatic as anything, clearly brilliant. it peeks through his writing too. hopefully he still has some growing to do as an author, however.

i've been thinking about it a little bit and this (admittedly mediocre) a.v. club list (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-books-of-the-00s,35774/) really makes me want to try out an end of decade somb book ranking. anybody else be up for that? it's a little more daunting than the music polls, but i think we can manage. 10 fiction picks, 10 optional non-fic picks?

I haven't read nearly enough books from this decade, but I'd definitely be interested in seeing other people's lists.

I've read 5 off that list. I thought it would be a lot worse. I don't know how they could possibly leave The Omnivore's Dilemma off the non-fiction list.

EDIT: And fuck all ya'll. 'Moneyball' should be on there too.

there's some grumbling on their talkback about the overwhelming middlebrowness of the list, but that's not what bothers me about it. i don't mind the middlebrow, i mind the predictability. the curious incident of the dog in the night time or whatever it's called was acceptable enough, but one of the 10 best novels of the decade? get the fuck outta here. i'd rather see something surprising (but also mainstream) than a book popularized by airports. that's why i'd like to see some somb top ten lists, to see what people read, loved, form a consensus, but still seeing the individual opinions, the idiosyncratic choices.

i mean, i've read a shit ton this decade. probably close to 1000 books. of those, i'd say that three-quarters were of this decade. i couldn't name probably more than 100 off the top of my head, and there are plenty that i loved that i would probably omit accidentally. i don't even know what i would call my favorite of the decade. but at the same time, i could list out tons that i loved, that i would defend vigorously against the criticisms of others.

there are enough of us who talk about books here to get a little heated with this. not simply posting what we're currrently working on, but what we love, what we don't. let's get discoursive.

The AV list is seriously boring. I hope those aren't the ten best books of the decade, otherwise it's been a pretty miserable decade. I agree that seeing a more idiosyncratic set of lists would be a lot more interesting. There's nothing anyone can learn from that AV list.

It's difficult to be discoursing when everyone's off doing their own thing. If you want to do a book of the month club thread where we can all be reading something at once, that might be more conducive.

Just curious STE and Ogawa, but to me the 4 great novels from this decade I can think of off the top of my head (Middlesex, Kavalier and Clay, The Road, The Corrections) are there. Obviously Time Traveler's Wife, Devil in White City, Harry Potter, etc. kind of dull it down. But are there any ommissions that anger you?

I'm almost certain that I haven't read any fiction books that anyone else has, except for the Cormac McCarthy books.

it's disappointing, because other than books, they're a pretty reliable mainstream pop culture hub. that list seems more like a people magazine list than it does the av club.

okay, this isn't a top ten list or anything, but i'm just going to try rattling off books that i absolutely loved, warts and all, this decade. fiction first:


fortress of solitude - lethem
black hole - charles burns
the autograph man - zadie smith
everything is illuminated - j safran foer
inherent vice - pynchon
the believers - zoe heller
sag harbor - colson whitehead
jonathan strange and mr norrell - susanne clark
the body artist - don delillo
man in the dark - paul auster
netherland - joseph o'neill
2666 - roberto bolano
king dork - frank portman
for the relief of unbearable urges - nathan englander
the emperor's children - claire messud
city of thieves - david benioff
the brief wondrous life of oscar wao - junot diaz
the girl with the dragon tattoo - stieg larsson
chronic city - jonathan lethem
the magicians - lev grossman
then we came to the end - joshua ferris
the blind assassin - margaret atwood
absurdistan - gary shteyngart

these are the ones that come to mind right now. they're mostly from the past couple years, which means that i'm overlooking dozens more. there are plenty of books i've regretfully not read, like never let you go, or those i never finished, like the savage detectives, or those (sorry, ogawa) that i thought were just plain overrated, like the road. but the more people chip in with their favorites, or the favorites of their remembered bookshelves, the better we can compile our own lists.

Well, obviously I'm a bit partial to Houellebecq, so it would've been nice to see his work represented. Overall, though, there's a serious lack of edge to this list. I think the subpar books do more than dull it down, it makes the list look terribly conventional, like a high school reading list working really hard to be as inoffensive as possible. These are all books that received great amounts of acclaim and tons of sales. There's no personality here, no overlooked gems. It looks more like marketing than a seriously considered list.

I guess other people have read Paul Auster, but that one is my 2nd least favorite of the decade.

mattw, i was actually debating adding time traveller's wife to my list. i had been living overseas for a few years when i read it, and was accustomed to a relative lack of english-language lit. it struck me as a a-grade b-book. meaning that it was far better than it had any right to be. still not artful, but compelling, believable and willing to explore the more troubling aspects of the concept. plus, having the violent femmes play a pivotal role in the book endeared itself to me in ways that other borderline chick-lit novels have not. not a great book, but probably better than anything else the middlebrow mainstream put out this decade. even still, i can't say that i loved it enough to name it as one of the best books of the decade.

as for the ones you picked, middlesex definitely should be added to my list. the corrections was turgid and over-written, a perfect example of a boring-ass white person book. not terrible, mind you, but awfully mediocre for such an ambitious book. the road i've already mentioned, and kavalier and clay i liked a whole lot, but the second half of the book kinda spoils it for me. i love chabon, but his essay collections are the only works i can defend wholeheartedly from this decade.

No sorry necessary. I'd actually agree with you. The Road is a fine enough book, but compared to Cormac's past achievements it's certainly nothing special. Way too easy to digest. Cormac for the Oprah crowd. From this decade, I'd say No Country is the better Cormac book, but even that isn't a scratch on Blood Meridian or Suttree.

man in the dark? i had some problems with the structure and i wouldn't call it flawless by any stretch of the imagination. but it definitely got to me in ways that many other books do not. same goes for the body artists. slight books with heavy flaws that somehow transcend their structural issues through sheer sincerity and depth of emotion. i can see why you might not have liked it, but i'd consider it one of his best post ny trilogy works. i have his new one in my to read pile at home. maybe this weekend.

it speaks volumes, for me at least, that the road is the only mccarthy i've ever completed. he's one of my biggest gaps in reading experience. i've tried to read suttree and blood meridian, but they require more concentration than my life often allows. the road wasn't bad. it was vividly realized. but it felt like a pulp-free stephen king novel. and while king's been off all decade, i'll take his old end of the world novels, with their old testament-y scope, over something as slight and immediately obvious as the road.

The Body Artist annoyed me more than anything else.

Apropos of nothing, have you read Memories of My Melancholy Whores, brobee? Damn good book.

My only real problem The Corrections was the section of the book about the daughter. It came off as an attempt to step up to the notion of the literary academic who can't write women. It wasn't necessarily full blown Tom Robbins, but it was overblown and awkward nonetheless. Other than that, overwriting be damned, I thought it was an excellent novel. My wife put it down after 50 pages because she didn't like how he wrote too, though.

do you like delillo, ogawa? which periods, if so?

i've not read a single sentence of 00's garcia marquez. i know that whores is short, maybe i can get it in by the end of the year.

and mattw, my problem with the corrections was that all of the characters felt smugly inauthentic and on-the-nose. whole chunks of the book, such as the cruise ship segment, just didn't click for me. it felt like franzen was gunning for a film option to be picked up by dreamworks and developed by sam mendes. not for me.

that i also read in in an afternoon while vacationing on a beach, stoned out of my gourd might have heightened my dislike for the book. again, i don't think it's a bad book, just one i deeply dislike.

also, if you're a fan of multi-generational family novels, i wholeheartedly recommend the believers. it has its flaws, namely unequal balance of characters, but overall it struck me as a complex, believable, warm but incisive portrait of a family mid-implosion. i might have been swayed by its accurate portrayal of modern jewish life, but i think that even goys'll find much to appreciate about the book.

I've only just started with DeLillo. Read White Noise, which I thought was brilliant, and Americana, which did very little for me. I really hated the way The Body Artist was written. It felt forced and awkward and kept me at a distance from the character and her situation.

i'll concede all those points. my love for this book lies in the introductory chapter. what comes after that was not nearly as strong, definitely awkward. but that opening really got to me.

it's massive, but check out underworld. the first 70 or so pages of that book are probably the best thing i've ever read. the rest is pretty good too, if too sprawling to form a cohesive feel for. i keep meaning to reread it, but i usually stop after that opening section. delillo's been off this decade as well, though i guess that i've yet to attempt falling man. it just seemed a little to hungry to be the sept. 11th novel.

I started Underworld once upon a time, and got through the first 100 pages or so, absolutely loving it. But that was a long time ago. I think I stopped because I knew I wouldn't be able to fully appreciate it at whatever age I was. I definitely need to read more of his stuff. I have Libra and Mao II sitting on my shelf next to Underworld. Perhaps I'll knock those down early next year. I feel so behind with literature. I only just started reading regularly again last year after a significant lapse. And now I'm playing eternal catch-up.

I'd definitely be up for this.

eternal catch-up is a great way of putting it. i've been a steady reader since i was maybe 12 or 13, starting with stephen king and james patterson, moving to less disposable fare. never have felt like i've been reading enough, even when i'm knocking through 4-5 books in a week. some books require more time, more attention (like underworld) and get pushed off until a later point that never comes. meanwhile, the list keeps getting longer and longer. there's no point in trying to read everything, just to read what you want to read. even if a book is terrible, i'll try and finish it. there's no point regretting book choices. just keep looking forward, finding things that you like.

have you ever tried lethem? i'd imagine so, but even if you didn't care for what you've read (a lot of suppositions in this statement) you should give a chance to his new one. it reminded me as i was reading it of what i imagine houllebeck (whom i've never read) is like.

You should check out Houellebecq's The Elementary Particles. Devastating book. I've yet to read any Lethem, though I'm always reading praises of his work. Where should I start?

Looking at his list of books this decade I think that Auster has mostly gone downhill, with the exception of Man in the Dark being an upswing up from Travels in the Scriptorium, which is the only Auster book I haven't read, putting it down after 50 pages or something.

edit: but I don't think Man in the Dark is back up to the height of the Brooklyn Follies.

as she climbed across the table is a favorite of mine, partially for sentimental reasons. it's a love story between an english professor, a physics professor and a dimensional vacuum she discovered. it suffers from some excessive wackiness, like much of his early novels, but is so on the mark about human relationships that it doesn't much matter. i'd recommend that, girl in landscape or motherless brooklyn are entry points. all are short, smooth reads that offer a good deal of subtextual depth. you could finish them in a weekend, easily. or check out men and cartoons, which is hit-or-miss, but contains two great short stories (which i tried and failed to find online) called the spray and the vision.

my favorite of his is fortress of solitude which is about as self-lacerating a semi-autobiographical novel as you could find. it's a fearless deconstruction of race, while also sort of a superhero novel. it succeeds in ways that kavalier and clay didn't, namely creating characters which feel real and believable. this means that you often dislike them, but not due to lack of understanding. the structure of the book is too good to spoil, and the end is devastating. i've read it at least three times all the way through and i've loved it more each time. the first read through is a little dense. he overwrites, at least in the beginning, and there are so many plot threads that it's hard to get into initially. once the focus narrows, it becomes eminently enjoyable.

i've just now ordered the elementary particles from the library. i'll let you know my impressions.

We should do this with Moby Dick some time, unless people have already read it of course. My academic career passed me by without me reading it. I tried to read it 3 years ago or so but I put it down for another time. I think I would get a lot more out of it if I read it with a group or an instructor helping me notice all the allusions and literary devices that would otherwise get past me.

i've never read moby dick either. i'll sign up for this.

I'll start with this one. Thanks for the rec.


I actually just read Moby Dick last year. Obviously a masterpiece (or rather a vibrating monolith, a horrific choral frenzy, as monumental and mysterious as the leviathans of which it sings), and certainly one I'd be willing to reread. Also, along those lines, I still have yet to plow through Ulysses, which I suspect would also be enriched by an active discussion.

Just finished this. The last few pages made me want to love the book, but so much of the midsection, and the language of the piece overall, did nothing for me. The geek references are cute at first, sure, but they start to feel forced about midway through, or like a good joke told far too many times. As well, the book suffers (and the language makes less sense) every time it gets away from Oscar. The sections about his mother and grandmother and the recent history of the Dominican Republic, especially, never really cohere with the rest of the story, and feel a tad superfluous, or like renegades from a different novel.

The book is conflicted, at once wanting to be about a fat geek's amusing quest to lose his virginity and then a more serious work about the Trujillo dictatorship in the Dominican Republic. I can understand a desire to tackle the more serious subject matter, and there is some intriguing material here, but at the same time it distracts from what is already an interesting (albeit modest) story, offering up history lessons that contribute little to our understanding of who Oscar is. In a way it felt a bit like Middlesex, often focusing too much on extraneous historical detail at the expense of characterization. Eugenides, however, did a better job than Junot Diaz of integrating the various aspects of his narrative. Still, I enjoyed the book for the most part and was very moved by the ending.


This was great. Reading Oscar Wao I got the sense that his writing would be a lot more enjoyable in shorter bursts and it is. It also seems to fit more here, avoiding any of the Pulitzer bait material that is the center of that novel, and just focusing on characters and language and silly drama. Is Drown anything like this? Or worth checking out?